You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Litigation update this week
- Thread starter jayo2k
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Again, your spinning is wrong and misleading. There have been cases where preliminary injunction was granted, but the party who moved for the motion finally lost the case. And there have been cases where preliminary injunction was not granted,but the moving party finally won the case. I can provide you with cases to support what I am saying. Or you can read American Bar Association (ABA) book on Injunctive Relief: Temporary Restraining Orders and Preliminary Injunctions.
I keep on saying dont be putting your own spin on the law-- the law is far from facial interpretations or spins. Anyway, I think I have decided not to prompt you on any of your spins.
I keep on saying dont be putting your own spin on the law-- the law is far from facial interpretations or spins. Anyway, I think I have decided not to prompt you on any of your spins.
Last edited by a moderator:
I am saying if he does not have any chance to win the whole process, his chances to get an injunction should always be exactly 0. That is why without p.1 injunction is not possible.
Again, your spinning is wrong and misleading. There have been cases where preliminary injunction was granted, but the party who moved for the motion finally lost the case. And there have been cases where preliminary injunction was not granted,but the moving party finally won the case. I can provide you with cases to support what I am saying. Or you can read American Bar Association (ABA) book on Injunctive Relief: Temporary Restraining Orders and Preliminary Injunctions.
I keep on saying dont be putting your own spin on the law-- the law is far from facial interpretations or spins. Anyway, I think I have decided not to prompt you on any of your spins.
According to Mr. White, that meansThe parties agreed to consolidate the preliminary injunction proceedings with an adjudication of the merits under Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(2)
That meant a different thing to me, but I trust Mr. White.it will make a final decision on the entire case brought by the 36 plaintiffs. If a decision is negative, the court will not go to the question of the entire class; if positive, the court would then review the question of the entire 22,000.
That probably means the judge considers the matter to be simple (me too) and expects the process of making judicial decision is going to end before July 15th, probably right on July 12th. Mr. White might still be able to apply to the court of appeals before DOS publishes results.
OIG probably also thinks the matter is simple, but wants to avoid the rush and provide thorough results of investigation.
Last edited by a moderator:
Of course, at the injunction hearing they do not consider the whole matter. But they estimate the likelyhood the plaintiff is going to win the case. If it is close to 0, it would be absolutely absurd to interrupt the process by injunction.Again, your spinning is wrong and misleading. There have been cases where preliminary injunction was granted, but the party who moved for the motion finally lost the case. And there have been cases where preliminary injunction was not granted,but the moving party finally won the case. I can provide you with cases to support what I am saying. Or you can read American Bar Association (ABA) book on Injunctive Relief: Temporary Restraining Orders and Preliminary Injunctions
Kwame O, is it possible that the judge has already made a preliminary decision before the hearing? That is my suspicion, but I though that cannot be the case. Am I wrong, is it allowed?
I also suspect OIG has a preliminary opinion as well. Their conclusion is no need to rush, because timeliness does not matter here. OIG does not want to sacrifice quality.
I also suspect OIG has a preliminary opinion as well. Their conclusion is no need to rush, because timeliness does not matter here. OIG does not want to sacrifice quality.
Last edited by a moderator:
Of course, at the injunction hearing they do not consider the whole matter. But they estimate the likelyhood the plaintiff is going to win the case. If it is close to 0, it would be absolutely absurd to interrupt the process by injunction.
And what is your legal basis for saying the chance of plaintiffs winning on merit is zero?
That is not for this case (Ilya Smirnov vs Hillary Clinton). This is for my imaginary case I described. Because there is no legal basis for the positive decision.And what is your legal basis for saying the chance of plaintiffs winning on merit is zero
Happy New July Month forumites!! this is actually the D-Month. We are now in a nervous atmosphere where issues is expected to be more edgy becos July 12th & 15th stick 2geda like a Siamese twin & d sucessful outcome of either (12th or 15th) will discredit d other.
Happy tense month pples...
Happy tense month pples...
Last edited by a moderator:
A court hearing has been set for July 12 at 10 a.m. in Washington D.C. The court has combined the hearing on the injunction with a hearing on the merits, meaning, it will make a final decision on the entire case brought by the 36 plaintiffs. If a decision is negative, the court will not go to the question of the entire class; if positive, the court would then review the question of the entire 22,000.
SO SAYS MR. WHITE!!!!!
Even the OIG failed to respond to Mr. White aspiration meaning that they see no case in what Mr. White is clamoring for.
July 12th decides where we r headin!!!
SO SAYS MR. WHITE!!!!!
Even the OIG failed to respond to Mr. White aspiration meaning that they see no case in what Mr. White is clamoring for.
July 12th decides where we r headin!!!
Last edited by a moderator:
Mr. White is really making some waves...for a few people. The rest with common sense see for what it is..a lawyer who needs clients and wants the publicity.
Where are all the other 10,000 lawyers standing in line to crap some of the fame...no where because smart lawyers don't take on losing cases unless there is something for them in it....and that is not even the case. I would stay far from this law firm. They give people hope and try to give them change...where did I hear that before...oh yeah in 2008 and see what that hope and change brought us...!
Where are all the other 10,000 lawyers standing in line to crap some of the fame...no where because smart lawyers don't take on losing cases unless there is something for them in it....and that is not even the case. I would stay far from this law firm. They give people hope and try to give them change...where did I hear that before...oh yeah in 2008 and see what that hope and change brought us...!
Raevsky,i dont think the judge would want to act on a preliminary decision.A case that have not been hearing in court.Maybe both parties would compromise before July 12.But i dont really think OIG would want to,maybe they have there own opinion also.You can as well know that preliminary injunction brought before a judge by a first party sometime loose to the other party while preliminary injunction brought before a judge might as well favor the party that brought it..Lets wait and see July 12 decisions by both parties and conclusion of the judge.But July 15 justify all.
wow, better than the best thriller.... we had no idea where we were going & now have no idea how it is gonna end but we know it will end
Just this one my name came out, am having stories, lawsuits and nightmares!
Yeah Mele its a New July.14 days to go.But my brother dont be too anxious about these whole thing cos you never can tell who re the redrawer winners.Maybe some of the ex-22k or the old non selectees.But i strongly believe that the redrawer could be fair.
U r right! Man Propose, God dispose.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.